G v C [2020] EWFC B35 (OJ) (16 July 2020)

G v C [2020] EWFC B35 (OJ) (16 July 2020)

The Thwaite jurisdiction is not engaged because there has been no significant change in circumstances since the Rose order; the ongoing Italian litigation and unexecuted agreements were known risks at the time of settlement. It would not be inequitable to hold W to the terms of the Rose order. The court lacks jurisdiction to order indemnities to non-parties. Disclosure of the transcript to U&A is refused as the application should be made by U&A, not H, and privacy of the proceedings must be preserved.

Citation
[2020] EWFC B35 (OJ)
Parties
Applicant/wife: W; Respondent/husband: H
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedies Application (matrimonial) / Post Final Hearing, Cross Applications to Vary/insert Orders and for Disclosure
Outcome
All applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Consent Orders, Variation of Orders, Disclosure, Indemnity, Costs, International Litigation
Family Law Financial Remedies Consent Orders Variation of Orders Disclosure Indemnity Costs International Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Applicant/wife

H

Respondent/husband

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedies Application (matrimonial) / Post Final Hearing, Cross Applications to Vary/insert Orders and for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court's Thwaite jurisdiction to vary executory orders is engaged
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change in circumstances justifying variation of the Rose order
  3. 3 Whether indemnities, a litigation fund, and costs should be inserted into the Rose order

Ratio Decidendi

The Thwaite jurisdiction is not engaged because there has been no significant change in circumstances since the Rose order; the ongoing Italian litigation and unexecuted agreements were known risks at the time of settlement. It would not be inequitable to hold W to the terms of the Rose order. The court lacks jurisdiction to order indemnities to non-parties. Disclosure of the transcript to U&A is refused as the application should be made by U&A, not H, and privacy of the proceedings must be preserved.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed

Orders

  • W's applications for indemnities, a litigation fund, and costs to be inserted into the Rose order are refused.
  • H's application for permission to disclose the transcript of W's evidence to U&A is refused.